The Veterinary Record Link to Vetlife website
HOME CURRENT ISSUE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SEARCH SUBSCRIPTIONS JOBS FEEDBACK HELP
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morzaria, S.
Right arrow Articles by Maund, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Morzaria, S.
Right arrow Articles by Maund, B.
The Veterinary Record, Vol 105, Issue 18, 410-414
Copyright © 1979 by British Veterinary Association


Papers & Articles

A field trial with a multicomponent inactivated respiratory viral vaccine

SP Morzaria, MS Richards, JW Harkness, and BA Maund

An inactivated virus vaccine containing strains of parainfluenza type 3 (PI3), bovine adenovirus type 3, reovirus type 1, bovine virus diarrhoea (BVD) and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) viruses was tested in a group of 58 calves reared in a semi-intensive management system. Following vaccination, 1/30, 14/30 and 17/30, showed significant rises in antibody titre to reovirus type 1, adenovirus type 3 and IBR respectively. None of the animals showed significant serological response to PI 3 and BVD. In the control group, 2/28, 1/28, 6/28 and 3/28 developed antibody responses to reovirus type 1, BVD, adenovirus type 3 and IBR respectively. Microbiological examination revealed the presence of a wide variety of commensal bacteria and Mycoplasma bovirhinis in both groups. Analysis of the records of clinical examinations indicated that the respiratory tract infections occurred among the calves at between 50 and 80 days after arrival at the farm, and that there was no significant difference between the test and the control groups. A number of animals had maternal antibodies to the various components of the vaccine present before the trial commenced and these antibodies appeared to interfere with the subsequent serological response to the antigen challenge. The vaccination schedule recommended by the manufacturer does not entirely circumvent this problem.





HOME CURRENT ISSUE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SEARCH SUBSCRIPTIONS JOBS FEEDBACK HELP
Copyright © 1979 British Veterinary Association